Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

14 N.J. 31 - TUDOR V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD


DECEMBER 7, 1953
VANDERBILT, C.J.

Plaintiff, a Jew, contends that the distribution of the Gideons Bible violates the teachings of the Jewish faith and other
religions.

DOCTRINE

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE

Plaintiff-Appellant
-BERNARD TUDOR

Defendant-Respondent
-BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD

Important/relevant third party (Intervenor-Responded)


-THE GIDEONS INTERNATIONAL, a corporation of Illinois

FACTS

1. The Gideons International is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, whose object is "to
win men and women for the Lord Jesus Christ, through * * * (c) placing the Bible God's Holy Words or portions thereof in
hotels, hospitals, schools, institutions, and also through the distribution of same for personal use."

2. In recent years it began a campaign to make available to pupils in the public schools of this country the so-called
"Gideon Bible”. In furtherance of this campaign it applied by letter to the Board of Education of the Borough of Rutherford
for permission to distribute its Bible to the public schools of that municipality which was approved.

3. Prior to the distribution of the books the present action was commenced demanding judgment as to the validity of the
distribution under the Federal and New Jersey Constitutions and seeking an injunction against it in which the trial judge
granted a temporary injunction and restrained the Board of Education from carrying out the terms of its resolution until
further determination of the action.

4. Gideons International was permitted to intervene as a party defendant. After a full hearing the trial judge on March 30,
1953 found in favor of the defendant and vacated the restraint and stay.

5. The plaintiff Bernard Tudor is an adherent of the Jewish religion, while plaintiff Ralph Lecoque is a member of the
Catholic faith, each being a New Jersey citizen and taxpayer of Rutherford and a parent of a pupil in a Rutherford public
school. Each contends that the Gideon Bible is "a sectarian work of peculiar religious value and significance to members
of the Protestant faith." Mr. Tudor claiming that "its distribution to children of the Jewish faith violates the 36 teachings,
tenets and principles of Judaism," while Mr. Lecoque states that "its distribution to children of Catholic faith violates the
teachings, tenets and principles of Catholicism."

1
ISSUE with HOLDING

1. Whether or not the resolution of the board of education displays that favoritism that is repugnant to our Constitutions.

Religion was a strong motivating force in the American colonies. People of all faiths flocked to the New World, many with
the hope that here for the first time they could enjoy religious freedom.

The decision, however, is based upon the claim of the Jewish plaintiff that the resolution of the Rutherford Board of
Education constitutes a preference of one religion over the Hebrew faith. A review of the testimony at the trial convinces
us that the King James version or Gideon Bible is unacceptable to those of the Jewish faith.

We find from the evidence presented in this case that the Gideon Bible is a sectarian book, and that the resolution of the
defendant board of education to permit its distribution through the public school system of the Borough of Rutherford was
in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment

Separation is a requirement to abstain from fusing functions of Government and of religious sects, not merely to treat
them all equally.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

The judgment below is reversed and the resolution of the Board of Education of the Borough of Rutherford under review is
stricken.

OTHER NOTES

The Federal Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution, states that the State or any instrumentality thereof cannot
under any circumstances show a preference for one religion over another. Such favoritism cannot be tolerated and must
be disapproved as a clear violation of the Bill of Rights of our Constitutions.

DIGESTER: Ma. Thea Beatriz S. Barte